The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail.
If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft and that not releasing code is wrong.
The fact that the proprietary code is based on GPL code just shows that the ex-Honey folks are hypocrites: they're trying to use copyright to control their code, but breaking the same rules in the way they reuse others' code.
> The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail.
> If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft
No, this is absolutely incorrect. GPL requires copyright (or similar mechanism) to function. Without copyright, anyone could take the GPL'd code and release a compiled binary without releasing source. Releasing the source is the "payment" for being granted a license to copy the original code; without releasing the source, you are in violation of the author's copyright. No one who wants to use the GPL to protect their and their users' rights would advocate for eliminating copyright, because the GPL's goals cannot be achieved without copyright.
The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. No need for copyright or anything remotely similar. Code being copyrightable would just be getting in the way at that point.
But in a world where that is politically infeasible, we have to use whatever tools we have at hand to get as close as we can. And, unfortunately, the tool we happen to have is the modern copyright regime.
But nobody is compelling anyone to write and release software. It's no different to requiring food to include a list of ingredients or products to include safety standards references etc.
I mean, there's a reasonable argument that large swathes of current copyright law in the US also violate the First Amendment. I haven't read it yet, but the book No Law from Stanford University Press[1] makes that argument and has been on my to-read list for a while.
One can still want much looser copyright. For example, 14 years by default, pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time (as compensation for stealing from the public domain). At least I'm willing to call extended copyright terms stealing if we're going to call format shifting and other personal use cases stealing.
> pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time
Doesn't work with DRM protected media. Version 1 will be pulled from circulation shortly before the time runs out, version 2 will be slightly altered and qualify for a brand new 14 year copyright. Buyers of version 1 will not receive any refunds and will be expected to pay the full price for version 2.
Well, there should be laws to protect consumers from DRM, instead of laws to prevent consumers from circumventing DRM for legal uses, like say consuming the content they paid for on the device of their choice.
Apart from having to crack DRM (which has not been a problem so far) I think this should work. Of course, DRM provisions should stop working when a DRM-encumbered media reaches the public domain.
How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?
I don't believe that ideas/intellectual work should be considered property. I will concede that granting a temporary monopoly through copyright or patents can maybe be a means of incentivizing innovation and creative work, but I'm not convinced it is the only means of doing so, and the longer that monopoly lasts, the more it can have the inverse effect of stifling innovation that builds on existing innovations.
At least in the US, copyright is a monopoly on certain rights for a limited time. By locking those rights for an extended time, it is stretching that definition. The time to benefit from your creations is in that time window. That goes for my creations, yours, and everyone else too. Public domain is patient, but I don't think it is worth depriving it of moderately older works with which others can start to use as a foundation to build upon.
> Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?
I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.
No I agree it’s a poor argument when looked at either extreme. I think most folks would likely agree that some taxation is beneficial, albeit not a 100% tax rate, which would be broadly analogous to the argument that copyright shouldn’t exist.
The person you replied to wasn't making the argument that copyright shouldn't exist. Their argument is in line with "some taxation" where it goes into the public domain after a while, and they only (potentially) called extended copyright terms stealing from the public domain.
We can see with current legal situation around AI learning and data scraping how companies and their lawyers has starting to work around the issue of not having data protected by copyright. The general alternatives to copyright seems to be TOS and contract law, except for Hollywood which went and drafted their own special law.
Downloading software from a server means you need to have access to that server, possible through an account. There is also a fair amount of precedence covering the enforceability of TOS and limitations of server access, especially when a company earn profit on intentionally ignoring them.
Contract law has its own issue, and copyright is generally seen as much easier to understand and enforce, but if contract law can be used to control how software and data is used after a user has downloaded it then it could be used for something like GPL.
If you want a mental metaphor of what the vast body of GPL'ed code is, think of a very, very large multinational corporation.
If you want to use their code, you have to join the company. Fortunately for you, all you have to do to join the company is to agree to use the same license for you own code as the company already does. If you agree to that, you are free to use any or all of the code "owned" by the company.
However, if you do not agree to the company's terms - i.e. you wish to use a different license - then you are not a part of the company and have no legal right to use any of the company's code. You may of course continue with your own software, but you cannot benefit from the amassed resource that is the company's own code (though of course reading it is allowed).
The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something.
There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park.
The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't fence off a part for yourself and start operating your tire-burning business in it. The body of people who either first donated it or the tax payers who voted for it set some terms for usage, and now you can either enjoy the goods under those terms or not.
But what's interesting is how some people have this kind of reaction and try to come up with this kind of argument over the act of being generous.
Are you sure GPL isn't even worse than you said? Why be so nice? Are you sure it doesn't also eat babies?
You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL.
You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real commons have historically been managed with a variety of social and civic techniques.
However, precisely because of this widespread repeating of Hardin's use of the term "commons", I tend to doubt that random mentions on HN of "the commons" actually means "a carefully socially and civically managed resource available to all but notionally protected from abuse". Rather, it does indeed tend to be a synonym for "public domain".
BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living.
> "a carefully socially and civically managed resource available to all but notionally protected from abuse".
no it seems that you've just been triggered - I did mean it in the above sense. that's why it's offensive when somebody takes gpl code and puts it in proprietary code that they distribute.
public domain means do as you want, even burn tyres in the park.
"BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living."
That is embarassing for such a self professed domain expert to say something as ridiculous as:
"You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL."
I still don't hear an argument that actually shows how it's not a commons. If you're just arbitrarily declaring it actually means "public domain" I say you don't get to declare that and inventing your own definitions for terms is not a valid argument or even valid comminication, and there is no further point in attempting to communicate with anyone doing that.
I'm not making up my own definitions. I'm contrasting Garrett Hardin's use of the term in his famous book "Tragedy of the Commons", which is the way most people on HN use it with Elinor Ostrom's much more enlightened definition of it in her refutations of Hardin's claims (refutations that Hardin has accepted).
In Ostrom's sense, yes, GPL'ed code comprises a commons. In Hardin's sense, it does not (or at least, it has a bunch of features to it that render his entire thesis about commons inapplicable).
I think it does fit "a bunch of resources that people can just use". It's a shared pool where the only rule is to put derived code back, except the rule is even less because personal use is exempted.
You want to use gpl code go right ahead. Want to modify it? No problem. Ignore the optional license. It isn’t a usage license.
I make changes to gpl code all the time. I never release the changes because my coding is far too embarrassing. Nobody forces me to release anything. I can and do compile it with gpl incompatible links, not a problem.
> The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not.
Uh, no there aren't. The GPL's requirements only kick in when I try to redistribute: that's why the license is in a file called COPYING. It's not an EULA: you don't need to agree with it to use GPL'd software.
Not technically. GPLs requirements kick in the moment you make a copy for you own use, it's just that there aren't any requirements that apply under those conditions.
But they'd have to take effect right away, otherwise you'd be illegally copying copyrighted software :). It is the GPL license that grants personal use without restriction.
Downloading is both literally and legally "creating a copy", at least in the US. [0]
> I don't need to be granted permission to run a program on my own computer.
Correct, you can run programs on your computer without permission. It's the 'loading the program on to your disk' part that you may need permission for.
> Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution.
>If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft and that not releasing code is wrong.
I'm mixed, because it's an entire spectrum and there's no clear sand in the ground. It's a very nuanced topic.
But fundamentally, if people want to make sure they can benefit most from their creations, they need some way to protect themselves. Otherwise the biggest wallet will grab the idea, out-advertise you, and out support you.
That's why I always vied for minimizing copyright periods, not abolishing the idea. Creators should benefit: creators have almost zero need to benefit almost a century after they die. the original 14 + 14 made enough sense and can still work: something that was basically an average lifetime back then and is now most of a working career. Those rights can transfer to whoever they want, and it would be transferred to a beneficiary posthumously. But when 28 is up, it's up.
Copyright was created in part, and allows the author of some covered work, to control the terms of how that work is used and distributed; so that both the creator and the user may benefit from that work.
GPL was created in part, and allows the author of some covered work, to control the terms of how that work is used and distributed; so that both the creator and the user may benefit from that work.
The GPL and copyright are both about controlling what other people do with something you made. The MIT, or BSD license, or some other very permissive license that doesn't set down restrictions are arguably different from copyright. But the GPL isn't the opposite of copyright. It's just has different terms of use.
No, public domain is the opposite of copyright. The GPL absolutely does give the author rights to dictate how people copy the software -- in fact -- even more so than many other open source licenses.
Copyright itself is arguably theft sponsored by the state, because information can naturally be freely used/shared by all of humanity. Creating property rights in information reduces the collective knowledge of humanity (the commons), because now information can't be shared.
The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such.
I don't agree with this maximalist approach because many forms of knowledge wouldn't be created without a financial incentive. But there's many niches in the economy where free software creates greater economic benefit than a proprietary solution.
> The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such.
This does not match my understanding. My understanding is that the goal of the GPL is to weaponize the copyright system to enforce copyleft. Many creators and supporters of the GPL do oppose IP laws (at least in their current form) but the goal specifically of the GPL isn't to destroy copyright, it's to weaponize it to accomplish higher purposes.
If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft and that not releasing code is wrong.
The fact that the proprietary code is based on GPL code just shows that the ex-Honey folks are hypocrites: they're trying to use copyright to control their code, but breaking the same rules in the way they reuse others' code.